Poverty as Statistic

It recently came out that 1 in 7 Americans, 44 million people, are living in poverty.  (Which of course is defined by an arbitrary and low income level).

This statistic doesn’t even begin to do justice to what it means to be poor, to “have not.” But maybe the sheer numbers have some weight?

Barbara Ehrenreich and Diana Pearce at the Institute for Policy Studies have written an op-ed about the ways in which the recession has “hit the lower class the most, despite persistent media portrayals of the ever-suffering middle class.”

NY Times columnist Bob Herbert writes, “the movers and shakers, including most of the mainstream media, have paid precious little attention to this wide-scale economic disaster.”  He likens it to his obviousness of the massive storm sweeping across the streets of New York City last week while he worked at his computer in his Upper West Side apartment.

And hip-hop journalist Davey D writes, “The sad part is for many there will be no bounce back and that’s where we have this major disconnect between the Haves and Have Nots.” 

He follows with this Cornel West video that criticizes Obama’s obsession with “technocratic approaches” rather than the structural change that is needed. 

What is the structural change that's needed?  Robert Reich breaks down some of the nuts and bolts of it HERE.  He points out that the deep inequality embedded in our economic system isn't just morally wrong, but structurally unsound--basically because "the economy" depends on a vast market of consumers, and if people are poor they can't buy things.  It's a messed up argument in many ways, but his calls for "widening the circle of prosperity" are welcome.  It has to do with taxing the windfall profits of the super-rich and reinvesting that money the the lives and communities of everyone else.